I accept. I'd like to thank Con for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to a good discussion on the topic at hand!

2. Burden of Proof

I assume that the burden of proof will be shared in this debate. As Pro, I will attempt to give evidence in the form of arguments to show that God exists. I expect that Con will provide his own arguments in attempt to show that God does not exist. As neither of these positions can be definitively proved, it seems to me that we ought to weigh the evidence on both sides (Pro and Con) in order to determine which is more likely- that God exists or that God does not exist.

3. Definition of God

As Con has not specified a definition of God for this debate, I will give my own. It is the following definition of God that I will be arguing in favor of throughout this debate.

God: A maximally great being

4. Arguments

I will provide three arguments in order to support my position that God exists. Each of these deductive arguments consist of a set of premises followed by a necessary conclusion. In order to take issue with the conclusion, Con must pick at least one premise to take issue with and refute. If Con fails to refute at least one premise in each of the three arguments that I present, then it seems to me that we have ample evidence to believe that God exists.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

5. Summary

I have provided three arguments to support my position that God exists. In order to win this debate, Con must refute each of these arguments (by showing at least one premise in each argument to be false) and in their place provide his own arguments in favor of his position that God does not exist. Until Pro is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof. We can then reasonably conclude that there are better reasons to believe that God exists than there are reasons to believe that God does not exist.

Thanks pro for accepting.
Your definition of god: a maximally great being. I can stop you right there. Since your theory is that basically "god created the universe and everything in it" is not acceptable for a start. I can give you a better theory, believed by many, is that aliens. What religion calls a great, supernatural being, can be alien forms which can be in flesh just like us, yet smarter. Assuming that they lived bilions of years before our world existed they could have found a way to create other life forms, which are obviously not perfect (e.g people die because of heart attack at very early age despite of their healthy diet and son on) or even some scientists say the world we live in is not perfectly suitable for us (you will die/ get injured if you stand under sun for too long). Given all that, I do not think god has to be an maximally great being, but a civilization of technologically improved life forms.
source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

"Since your theory is that basically "god created the universe and everything in it" is not acceptable for a start."

This isn't a coherent sentence, so I'm not sure how to respond other than to guess what it is that Con is trying to say. Con is correct in assuming that I believe "God created the universe and everything in it" but I am unsure how or why this would conflict with the definition I provided for God (a maximally great being). I would ask Con to please clarify what the issue is here.

"I can give you a better theory, believed by many, is that aliens."

Here we go... Aside from the fact that this too is an incoherent sentence, I would just add that I was hoping for a more serious debate than this. Anyway, I'll move on to addressing the rest of Con's theory below.

"What religion calls a great, supernatural being, can be alien forms which can be in flesh just like us, yet smarter. Assuming that they lived bilions of years before our world existed they could have found a way to create other life forms, which are obviously not perfect (e.g people die because of heart attack at very early age despite of their healthy diet and son on) or even some scientists say the world we live in is not perfectly suitable for us (you will die/ get injured if you stand under sun for too long)."

Here Con makes it clear that he does not understand the concept of a maximally great being. A maximally great being must necessarily have maximal greatness in all great-making properties. So, to give some examples of characteristics, a maximally great being would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, transcendent of space and time, etc. Con proposes that aliens are a candidate for a maximally great being. The problem is that aliens, even if they existed, would not be maximally great. The aliens Con describes have "flesh just like us" and are thus constrained in space-time, a trait which is incompatible with a necessarily transcendent maximally great being. Furthermore, these aliens themselves had a beginning (and an end, if I understand Con correctly). But surely Con realizes that a being with maximal greatness can have neither a beginning nor an end. Nothing seems to be more obvious than this. The article provided by Con as a source is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. Titled "Humans do NOT come from Earth – and sunburn, bad backs and pain during labour prove it, expert claims", the article (which is isn't very good to begin with) says absolutely nothing about a maximally great being, much less anything about aliens being maximally great beings.So, then, Con's attempted challenge to the definition of God has failed.

2. Arguments

In the opening round, I provided three arguments in support of my position that God exists. Con failed to respond to a single one of these arguments, and so they stand, at least for now. As I have nothing to add, I will continue to wait for some kind of response from Con regarding the arguments I gave.

3. Summary

Not only has Con failed to respond to any of the arguments I provided in the opening round, but Con has also failed to provide a single argument of his own in favor of his position. As I stated in the previous round, in order for Con to win the debate, he must refute each of my arguments and in their place provide his own arguments supporting the position that God does not exist. Until Pro is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof. So, as for now, we have 3 unrefuted arguments in favor of God's existence and 0 arguments against God's existence. This leads us to the conclusion that there are better reasons to believe that God exists than there are to believe that God does not exist.

Pro stated my sources are not "very good". yet, this statement is nothing but his own perspective. Theory of aliens states they should be smarter than us, yet we may have a stronger physcial form than them. Thus, this doesnt make them a maximally great being as pro's description of "god". Since pro's understanding of god does not exist, he should accpet god does not exist.
Pro stated that "he was expecting a better debate". Meaning, he finds the alien theory absurd. Yet, on the provided info on his profile that he is a christian, he do believes every absurd event so called "miracle" in the bible.
Conclusion: He thinks we are alone this universe (which houses bilions of planets). He believes in every unexplained event in the bible (moses divided the sea into half, jesus ressurected etc.) yet he thinks alien life forms, who are smarter and techonologically more developped than us, can exist.
P.S thats where the P1 is false if you havent figured out yet. They dont have to be maximally great in all fields. Let me simplize it for you: Humans are smarter than a tiger, though he is stronger. It does not make us a maximally great being for the tiger in the field of raw strenght.

"Pro stated my sources are not "very good". yet, this statement is nothing but his own perspective."

You're absolutely correct here, it is my own perspective. I don't recall saying otherwise. I would imagine that most people would not consider a newspaper article about aliens bringing humans to this "prison planet" called Earth thousands of years ago. I think Con may have just a bit of difficulty convincing anyone to take anything about that article seriously. But the point is not that the article is absurd, it is that the article, even if it were completely accurate, has no relevance to our discussion!

"Theory of aliens states they should be smarter than us, yet we may have a stronger physcial form than them. Thus, this doesnt make them a maximally great being as pro's description of "god". Since pro's understanding of god does not exist, he should accpet god does not exist."

I fail to see how Con manages to make the jump from aliens not being maximally great to "God does not exist". What kind of reasoning is this? It seems to me that Con still is not able to comprehend the concept of a maximally great being. By virtue of its nature, there can only be one maximally great being. So Con's talk of aliens not being maximally great (though this is correct) is just more irrelevance. However, the fact that aliens are not maximally great does nothing to show that there is no such thing as a maximally great being. I am not maximally great. The chair I am sitting in is not maximally great. Clearly, these facts do not lead to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a maximally great being.

"Pro stated that "he was expecting a better debate". Meaning, he finds the alien theory absurd."

Spot on.

"Yet, on the provided info on his profile that he is a christian, he do believes every absurd event so called "miracle" in the bible."

If it's true that God exists (and if we base that off of the way this debate is going, it seems far more likely that God does exist than that He doesn't), then there is nothing "absurd" about miracles. What might be more absurd is if there was an absence of miracles, given God's existence.

"Conclusion: He thinks we are alone this universe (which houses bilions of planets)."

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate topic. But yes, from what I have seen, the evidence indicates that it is far more likely that "we" are alone in the universe than that some sort of alien species exists. However, if evidence came about that indicated aliens existed, I would be happy to follow that evidence where it leads. I have no issue with the possibility of extraterrestrial life, I simply don't think that there is any such thing (for now, at least). Now, I hope we can get back to debating God's existence rather than the existence of aliens.

"He believes in every unexplained event in the bible (moses divided the sea into half, jesus ressurected etc.) yet he thinks alien life forms, who are smarter and techonologically more developped than us, can exist."

For the record, I don't believe that Moses divided the sea in half. But yes, I believe in the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and I think I have the evidence on my side in that case. Also, I never said that I don't think aliens can exist, I merely said that I don't think that they do exist. I'm open to follow the evidence where it leads. It should be remembered that the topic of this debate is "Does God Exist?" The topic is not "Do aliens exist?" Nor is the topic "Do miracles exist?" I would kindly ask Con to please stay on topic and provide evidence and argument in support of the position he chose to defend when inviting me to this debate rather than going on tangents about aliens.

"P.S thats where the P1 is false if you havent figured out yet. They dont have to be maximally great in all fields. Let me simplize it for you: Humans are smarter than a tiger, though he is stronger. It does not make us a maximally great being for the tiger in the field of raw strenght."

Which premise are you talking about? Which argument? In what way does anything that you've said throughout this debate had any relevance to the arguments I provided? Here again, Con demonstrates his lack of understanding of the concept of a maximally great being. As I have already explained this concept earlier in the round, I won't be repetitive. I will only point out that neither humans or tigers are (or could be) a maximally great being. If Con cannot understand this simple concept, I'm not sure why he has chosen to engage himself in this sort of debate.

2. Arguments

In the opening round, I provided three arguments in support of my position that God exists. Con has again failed to respond to a single one of these arguments, and so they stand, at least for now. As I have nothing to add, I will continue to wait for some kind of response from Con regarding the arguments I gave.

3. Summary

Not only has Con again failed to respond to any of the arguments I provided in the opening round, but Con has also failed to provide a single argument of his own in favor of his position. As I stated in the first round, in order for Con to win the debate, he must refute each of my arguments and in their place provide his own arguments supporting the position that God does not exist. Until Con is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof. So, as for now, we have 3 unrefuted arguments in favor of God's existence and 0 arguments against God's existence. This leads us to the conclusion that there are better reasons to believe that God exists than there are to believe that God does not exist.

"But yes, from what I have seen, the evidence indicates that it is far more likely that "we" are alone in the universe than that some sort of alien species exists."
Pro states that he needs evidence (from what he has SEEN) to to believe that aliens exist, despite there are scientist who believe that we are not alone in the universe (http://www.forbes.com...), yet he needs no evidence to accept god's existence.
Since Pro believes that merriam-webster is a reliable source here is what merriam-webster tells us about definition of god:
God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
Pro has always failed to make his mind, actually, I would say he seems to be really confused. Even the sources he use conflicts entirely with his own statement.

"Pro states that he needs evidence (from what he has SEEN) to to believe that aliens exist, despite there are scientist who believe that we are not alone in the universe"

I was hoping to move on from the discussion of the existence of aliens, as it is neither thought-provoking nor relevant to the topic of this debate. I won't be responding to any more of Con's alien theories for reasons that I have stated explicitly throughout the debate. I think any readers of the debate will be able to see that I have clearly attempted on several occasions to show Con why his alien theory is not relevant to the topic of the debate, even if that theory is true.

"yet he needs no evidence to accept god's existence"

Ironically, I've provided three arguments which give good reason to accept God's existence in this debate, each of which has gone unaddressed by Con. I'm beginning to doubt that Con has even read the arguments I have given.

"Since Pro believes that merriam-webster is a reliable source here is what merriam-webster tells us about definition of god:God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe"

This definition works just fine for me. The only reason I provided the definition "God: a maximally great being" is because Con failed to define God in his opening argument. I am glad Con has decided on the fourth round of the debate as a good time to define his terms. This doesn't matter, though, as even if we accept this definition of God it does nothing to change any of the arguments I have presented. I would ask Con to take a look at the evidence I have provided in favor of God's existence rather than worrying so much about a definition which he himself failed to provide.

"Pro has always failed to make his mind, actually, I would say he seems to be really confused. Even the sources he use conflicts entirely with his own statement."

You'll find that none of the sources I have used conflict in the slightest with any statement I have made in this debate. I invite Con to show how the dictionary definition of God is in conflict with "a maximally great being".

2. Arguments:

In the opening round, I provided three arguments in support of my position that God exists. Con has again failed to respond to a single one of these arguments, and so they stand, at least for now. As I have nothing to add, I will continue to wait for some kind of response from Con regarding the arguments I gave.

3. Summary

Not only has Con again failed to respond to any of the arguments I provided in the opening round, but Con has also failed to provide a single argument of his own in favor of his position. As I stated in the first round, in order for Con to win the debate, he must refute each of my arguments and in their place provide his own arguments supporting the position that God does not exist. Until Con is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof. So, as for now, we have 3 unrefuted arguments in favor of God's existence and 0 arguments against God's existence. This leads us to the conclusion that there are better reasons to believe that God exists than there are to believe that God does not exist.

Accepting webster's definition changes everything. God: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.
Humans can give life as well. The best proof of that is Dolly the cloned sheep. You may say "but again, who first created that cell which was used in the process?". Yet, can you say the "life" of that cell and life of Dolly are the same things? We, as humans, can give life and we can take it away whenever we want. We posses the power to destroy an entire planet. But then, we are not perfect nor an all powerful "spirit". This makes the given definition wrong as we cant be "gods" because, we get sick, we die etc. Thus, making us not perfect in a field.
Prooven that the pro's definition of god is wrong to begin with, god does not exist.

If you take a look at the three arguments I presented in the beginning of this debate, you'll find that both the definition you've presented and the one I gave in absence of a provided definition will work in these arguments. There is no conflict between the two definitions, nor is there a conflict between either definition and any of the arguments. As I said, I will gladly accept either definition. But it is essential to recognize that both of these definitions fit the arguments that I presented. As such, changing the definition of God in the fourth round does not in any way disqualify any of the arguments I have given.

"Humans can give life as well."

Of course they can. Why is this relevant?

"We posses the power to destroy an entire planet. But then, we are not perfect nor an all powerful "spirit". This makes the given definition wrong as we cant be "gods" because, we get sick, we die etc. Thus, making us not perfect in a field."

By what stretch of the imagination does this make any definition of God "wrong"? Con seems to be arguing that because humans do not fit the definition of God, therefore God does not exist. But I am not arguing that humans are gods, so the fact that humans and the definition of God is incompatible presents no issue. This is one of many red herrings (think back to the aliens) that Con has thrown out instead of taking an honest look at the arguments I presented in favor of my position.

"Prooven that the pro's definition of god is wrong to begin with, god does not exist."

Wrong. Even if Con could prove that my definition of God was "wrong", which he hasn't, this would do nothing to show that God does not exist. It would at the very most show that I have a misunderstood conception of what God is, but it gains absolutely no ground in affirming or denying God's existence. In either case, as I have stated throughout this debate, all definitions that have been presented by both Con and myself will fit with the arguments I have given.

2. Arguments

Unfortunately, Con didn't respond to a single one of the arguments that I gave, even though he had several rounds to do so. As such, the arguments I presented in the first round, for the purposes of this debate at least, hold sound.

3. Conclusion

In the first round of the debate, I said that in order for Con to win the debate he needed to refute each of the three arguments I presented, and in their place put forward arguments of his own in order to support his position that God does not exist. Con has failed to even mention any of the arguments I gave, much less put forward his own arguments. It is unfortunate that Con spent his time arguing about aliens and complaining about definitions rather than participating in an intelligent discussion about the topic in which he invited me to debate.

It could not be more clear that Con has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof. We have 3 sound arguments in favor of God's existence, and 0 arguments against God's existence. We can reasonably conclude, then, that there are better reasons to believe that God exists than there are to believe that God does not exist.

That might be the worst distortion of what was said that I've ever seen on this website.

Here is the true context:

"Even if Con could prove that my definition of God was "wrong", which he hasn't, this would do nothing to show that God does not exist. It would at the very most show that I have a misunderstood conception of what God is, but it gains absolutely no ground in affirming or denying God's existence. In either case, as I have stated throughout this debate, all definitions that have been presented by both Con and myself will fit with the arguments I have given."

I said this to show that even if you were right and my conception of God was wrong, it would not follow that God does not exist. Please do not dishonestly take my words out of context.

"I have a misunderstood conception of what God is" said by pro. Since it is a debate between me and pro, pro stated exactly that he did not understand correctly, thus making everything what pro said useless to begin with. Con wins.

You haven't stated any argument at all is my point. If I gather what you're trying to say and form an argument from it, I imagine it would look something like this:

P1) If aliens exist, there is no such thing as a maximally great being
P2) Aliens exist
C1) Therefore, there is no such thing as a maximally great being

The problem is that both of your premises are more probably false than true (this is obvious in the case of the first premise). Even if I grant you that aliens exist, this does nothing to show anything regarding the existence or nonexistence of a maximally great being.

credo, we are not talking about the existence of aliens. What you are telling me is that only a supreme being that we cannot understand created us. I am teaching you that your way of thinking is not the only way. As %90 of religious people, you are wearing horse googles. I stated an argument which you did not expect, which you have never tought. I understand. It happens.

The question of the debate which you have asked me to participate in is "Is there a God?" Please stick to this topic, as I don't have much interest (or care in the slightest) about debating the existence of aliens. Please save the alien theories for another debate with another opponent, and for now focus on providing some sort of argument in favor of your position.

"Why there still be numorous poor people in the world or a huge number of people suffering from disease, starving"

What does this have to do with the concept of God? Are you suggesting that if God exists, the world must be perfect? I think that is impossible. Due to free will, the world is more or less what we make of it. The evil and suffering in the world is not from God, but from us. So why do you attempt to shift the blame to God? What reasoning do you have for this?

"The African probably do not believe in so called God as long as he generate a couple of benefit for them."

Funny enough, the Christian population in Africa is growing more rapidly than any other place on Earth. So it seems you're wrong; even though Africa is the poorest continent, it is also the fastest-growing continent with regard to Christianity. On the other hand, rich places, such as the majority of Europe, have the most religious decline. I wonder if this is insight to who the real "rich" and "poor" will be in the end.

"It also raises another question that whether or not a sign for the appearance of Jesus? Does he has a permanent place to live? No matter how miracle he is, he would obviously has a home."

I would say that Jesus no longer has a physical body, and as such, Jesus needs no physical home. His "home" as you say, would be purely spiritual.

"Last but not least, no sooner do you recognise the existence of the God than you also agree that Budda is also alive."

I'm sorry, I don't really understand why or how Budda is being brought into this.

"In conclusion, where are they, where is God?"

God does not have a physical place within our world. God exists spiritually within those who allow Him to do so.

I hope I've answered all of your questions. Let me know if you have any additional questions or conc